Technical Report 617

m The Development of a Unit Morale

00 Measure for Army Battalions

cc

Melvin J. Kimmel

Army Research Institute

Francis E. O'Mara

Advanced Technology Incorporated

and DTIC

Nehama Babin ELECTE

University of Maryland JUN 03 M D

Personnel Utilization Technical Area

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences _5

March 1984

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

86 6 2 045
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

Technical review by

Laurel W. Oliver

Paul Van Rijn

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

needed. Please do not return It to the U.S. Army Research institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized

documents.

%°%
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ("en Dete En.tered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE CONPLETING FORM 1. REPORT NUMBER GOVT CCCSON REIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Technical Report 617 _A At 1UER 4. TITLE (nd Subtitle) 5 TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIT MORALE MEASURE FOR 6

ARM BATTALIONSI B. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(&) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.

Melvin J. Kimmel (ARI); Francis E. O'Mara (Advanced Technology, Inc.); & Nehama Babin

(University of Maryland) _ _ _ _.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral AREAS WORK UNIT NUMRS

and Social Sciences 2QV62722A791 7

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 2

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral March 1984

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600 25

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

UNCLASSIFIED

IS&. DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRACiNG

SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverese ide if necessary end Identify by block number)

Morale

Measurement of morale

Job satisfaction

ZAT rAthuue , rver-e. #f4 i n. . and -euuv Identify by block nu.be) \Ah.instrum'ent measuring organizational morale was constructed from unit

member satisfaction responses aggregated to the battalion level. The data I

were gathered at three different points in time from military personnel within

55 CONUS battalions. Significant positive correlations between the satisfaction scores and an independent index of affective- orlientation supported the

widely held, but largely untested assumption that saeisfaction measures are

indications of an individual's affective orienta ion toward (Continued)

DO Po 1473 Eo,nOF I NOVGS IS OSOLETE

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PA-E Whe te Fnr. t)

- " . . " " ., " " ' ' , " ' . ,. ' . . -
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whmi Dole Itnterod)

ARI Technical Report 617

20. (Continued)

his/her unit. Analysis of the instrument's psychometric properties showed it

to be a reliable and valid measure of morale as an organizational characteristic as distinct from an individual level variable. Theoretical and applied

implications of these findings for the study of organizational morale in

military and nonmilitary units are discussed.

Accesion Fo 1

NTIS CRAI

DTIC TAB 03

Unannounced 0

Justificatio... ......

Distribution I%

Availability Codes

Avail and I or

Dist Special '

3

i%%
Technical Report 617

The Development of a Unit Morale

Measure for Army Battalions

Melvin J. Kimmel

Army Research Institute

Francis E. O'Mara

Advanced Technology Incorporated

and

Nehama Babin

University of Maryland

Submitted by

Paul A. Gade, Chief

Personnel Utilization Technical Area

Approved as technically adequate

and submitted for publication by

Joyce L. Shields, Director

Manpower and Personnel

Research Laboratory

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

March 1984

Army Project Number Retention & Reenlistment

2Q162722A791

Apotoved for public rlese; distribution unlimited.

LA - - *" %
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv

M* - P,---------~**~~*I '- . - -.- :

* *~ s..~.% * *. ~ ** -- . . -°**.]
FOREWORD

For a number of years, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences (ARI) has conducted research to identify organizational

factors impinging on soldier retention and mission accomplishment. The data

for this study were collected as part of a larger Command Climate project which

assessed climate, cohesion, morale, leadership, unit effectiveness, and other

organizational variables at Army battalion level and investigated the dynamic

interrelationships of these variables over time.

This particular report is concerned with the measurement of morale in

Army battalions. It describes the construction and validation of a measure

that can be used both as an assessment instrument and as a research tool to

study organizational morale in Army units.

EDGAR M. JOHNSO

Technical Director

v

-.') -..i':". ..'i ") .. i i. " -. . ." -") ..', '-'2'.. ".- " ,a. .-.--. '-'. 2 -''a. ,--.'... .. '-''-. .. '--.- ..-.-.-..-.- '-,.--'' ,-2-
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIT MORALE MEASURE FOR ARMY BATTALIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

To construct and validate an organizational morale measure from aggregated unit member satisfaction responses.

Procedure:

Job satisfaction measures were administered at three different points

in time to a sample of 55 combat arms, combat support, and combat service

support battalions at six CONUS installations. At each data collection

wave, an independent sample of service members, NCOs, and officers was randomly drawn, using the last digit of individual social security numbers.

The total sample consisted of 5,844, 6,182, and 6,875 individuals for waves

1, 2, and 3, respectively. A morale score for each battalion was generated

by first averaging the battalion members' responses to the satisfaction

items into a "General Satisfaction" score for each individual, and then

averaging the General Satisfaction scores for all battalion members.

Findings:

(1) The individual satisfaction measures were significantly correlated

with a derived measure of affect, suggesting the validity of the satisfaction measures as indicants of affective orientation.

(2) The battalions differed significantly on the General Satisfaction

measure, suggesting that affective orientation is a measurable organizational

attribute and can, thus, be analyzed at this level.

(3) Battalion morale scores on adjacent data collection waves were significantly correlated, offering further support for the hypothesis that

morale is a relatively stable organizational variable.

Utilization of Findings:

The organizational morale measure developed in this research project

can be used to assess unit morale and as a research tool to gain a better

understanding of the antecedents and consequences of this most important

concept.

vii

° . is' .o ' ° - . . -
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIT MORALE MEASURE FOR ARMY BATTALIONS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ........... ............................. .i. 1

METHODOLOGY ............... ............................ 4

RESULTS............................. 7

DISCUSSION ............... .............................. 9

REFERENCES ........... .............................. ... 13

V.

APPENDIX A: SATISFACTION AND CLIMATE SURVEY ITEMS .. .......... ... A-I

B: SUMMARY STATISTICS OF BATTALION LEVEL MORALE MEASURE.

AS A FUNCTION OF WAVE AND GRADE LEVEL............... . B-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Sample composition by wave, rank and unit type . . . . . . . 5....

2. Zero-order and multiple correlation between Affective

Index (AI) and Satisfaction Measures ...... ............ 7

3. Results of one-way ANOVAs testing discriminability of

General Satisfaction Measure by wave .. ............ . .. 8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual relationship of Climate Measures to

Affective Measures ....... .................... . 10

ix
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIT MORALE

MEASURE FOR ARMY BATTALIONS

INTRODUCTION

While there are obviously many factors contributing to mission accomplishment,

one that has been consistently emphasized by military strategists over the years is the

unit's morale. For example, Munson 1921), a former brigadier general, believed that

the relationship between morale and unit effectiveness "is so obvious and has been

proven so often as to require no supporting argument" (p.2). Similarly, Baynes (1967),

writing about the Second Scottish Rifles at the World War I Battle of Neuve Chapelle,

suggested that "the maintenance of morale is recognized in military circles as the most

important single factor in the war" (p.92). In a recent review of the morale literature,

Motowidlo et al. (1976) indicated that this opinion is still widely held throughout the

military and concluded that "apparently, hardly any military commander doubts that

morale is a potent force determining group effectivenes" (p.5 2). However, these

authors also pointed out that despite its stated importance, no coherent theory of 4.

organizational morale exists, and there is virtually no systematic empirical literature

on the subject.

An important first step to learning about organizational morale would be to

construct a reliable and valid measure of the concept. Motowidlo and Borman (1977)

were only partially successful in developing such an instrument. Although the authors

reported some evidence for the scale's convergent validity, its reliability was low and

there were indications of a halo effect in the ratings. The major purpose of the present

study was to develop an instrument that was free from such deficiencies.

One obvious issue to consider before developing a valid morale measure is its

definition. Unfortunately, there are almost as many definitions of morale as there are

people writing about it. This problem was highlighted by Motowidlo et al. (1976) in

their discussion of a 195S conference on industrial morale:

It was evident that although the participants were all ostensibly

discussing morale, they were all talking about somewhat different things. Each seemed to have his own notions about morale,

and none of their definitions corresponded exactly to what...

[discussants at an earlier conference]...concluded about morale,

although there was some overlap. (p.50)

.. ...., ;.. . ... - -,- . . 6.. 
While definitions differ, most writers seem to agree that morale represents an affective

orientation towards the work unit or organization and includes "job satisfaction" as one

of its major components. Tamapol (1963), for example, saw morale as "the sum of the

satisfactions an employee derives on the job." (p.5), and Guion (1958) defined it as "the

extent to which the individual perceives that satisfaction as stemming from his total

job situation." (p.62). Similarly, Stagner (1958) emphasized satisfaction in his morale

definition as well: "Morale is an index of the extent to which an individual perceives a

probability of satisfying his own motives through cooperation with a group" (p.64).

It should be noted, however, that these definitions characterized morale as an

individual-level variable, while most military writers (e.g., Baynes, 1967; Munson, 1921)

and some organizational theorists (e.g., Applewhite, 1965; Martin, 1965) describe the

concept as an organizational variable characteristic of the unit as a whole. In a study

referred to earlier, Motowidlo and Borman (1977) used such an organizational level

defiriition as a basis for constructing their morale measure. Their definition was as

follows:

Morale, it is most general sense, might be defined as a psychological state shared by members of a group that consists of

general feelings of satisfaction with conditions that have impact

on the group and strong motivation to accomplish group objectives despite obstacles or adversity. (p.177)

Based on these conceptual definitions, it would appear appropriate to develop an

organizational level morale measure by aggregating unit member responses to a series

of job satisfaction items. Such an approach, however, has been criticized on a number

of grounds. Some writers question the use of satisfaction as the only indicant of

morale. Blum and Naylor (1968) and Motowidlo et al. (1976), for example, argued that

an adequate definition of morale should include such factors as motivation and

cohesion, and not be limited to job satisfaction alone. However, this assumption is not

shared by all those who write on the subject, as Martin (1965) and Tamapol (1963) both

contended that satisfaction is the major (if not the only) determinant of morale.

A second criticism involves the appropriate level of analysis to use in defining

such affective constructs as satisfaction and morale. Guion (1973) and Lincoln and

Zeitz (1980) argued that while it is possible to aggregate scores on an individual level

2

* 4. . 4 . -

-
variable to form an organizational attribute, it makes little sense to do so with an

affective characteristic such as satisfaction. They explained that satisfaction, like all

evaluative or affective constructs; is subject to an individual's unique motives, values,

and job environment. Since these characteristics differ from individual to individual,

they believed it would be pointless to aggregate satisfaction scores in an attempt to

form a relatively stable and generally agreed upon affective orientation toward the

organization. The assumption appears to be that since job satisfaction is an individuallevel variable, the affective orientation toward the organization resulting from

aggregated satisfaction scores must also be an individual- level variable. Motowidlo

and Borman (1978) questioned this argument in a study correlating aggregated satisfaction scores with their morale measure described earlier. Significant relationships were

reported. However, their results cannot be taken as conclusive because of the

previously mentioned psychometric problems with their morale instrument.

The development of the present morale measure proceeded in two phases. In the

first of these, a test was performed to determine whether satisfaction measures are

true indicators of an individual's affective orientation towards the organizational

setting. While this has been stated as an assertion in the literature (Guion, 1958), it is

one which has not heretofore been based on empirical evidence. Clearly, any

operational definition of morale that is based on such a contested assumption is one

which possesses an uncertain foundation.

The second phase of the analysis examined the psychometric qualities of an

organizational morale measure of Army battalions that was based on the combination of

unit members' affective orientation as measured by satisfaction items. If unit member

consensus on this variable reflects a true organizational attribute, then satisfaction

measures should distinguish among organizational units and should show a degree of

stability across time. :!

Specifically, the following hypotheses were tested: (I) Satisfaction measures are

true indicators of an individual's affective orientation toward the organization;

(2) Satisfaction measures will differ significantly between Army battalions; (3) Unit

morale, as measured by aggregated satisfaction scores, will be relatively stable across

time.

3 ..............................................
METHOD .

Subjects and procedures. Data were collected from a sample of 55 combat arms,

combat support, and combat service support battalions located at six installations in the

Continental United States (CONUS). Surveys were administered in large groups by

teams of researchers at three six-month intervals. At each wave of data collection an

independent sample of service members, NCOs, and officers within each unit was drawn

randomly using the last digit of individual social security numbers. All companies

within the battalions were requested to select a sample consisting of 20 service

members, 10 noncommissioned officers, and five officers per company, supplemented by

five battalion staff officers. Table I displays the composition of each wave sample by

rank and unit type. As shown, the total sample for each wave consisted of 5,844, 5,182,

and 6,875 individuals, respectively. The battalion representation in this sample varied

slightly from wave to wave depending on the availability of battalions for testing at

each time frame. ,

Measures. The survey contained two sets of items. One set was composed of four

items drawn from the Survey of Organizations (Taylor & Bowers, 1974) and measured

individual satisfaction toward four organizational domains: unit, supervisors, coworkers

and job. These items were scored so that a higher score represented greater

satisfaction. The second set contained 69 items and measured organizational climate

on the same four domains as the satisfaction items. The "unit" climate domain included

measures of such areas as unit effectiveness, quality of communications, organizational

standards, and the orderliness and purposefulness of unit activities. The "supervisor"

domain measured various facets of leadership behavior, including supervisory consideration, initiation of structure, and leader planning ability. The "coworker" domain

assessed levels of cohesion and motivation among unit members, while the "job" domain

assessed various characteristics of unit members' jobs such as job pressure, job

enrichment, and levels of job responsibility. The actual satisfaction and climate items

used in the survey can be found in Appendix A.

Following data collection, quality control procedures were instituted to screen

answer sheets for evidence of incomplete, inattentive or biased responding. The

procedures included a computer analysis of each subject's data to identify the

prevalence of various forms of pattern responding. The most common form of pattern

4
.L

 -- w, W. QL 

-. T7 k K

TABLE I

SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY WAVE, RANK AND UNIT TYPE

Rank Unit Types Wave Total

12 3

CAI 2,451 2,571 2,563 7,585

Service Members CS 695 642 877 2,214

CSS 535 694 811 2,040

Totals 3,681 3,907 4,251 11,839

CA 1,083 999 1,057 3,139

NCOs CS 311 311 377 999

CSS 242 290 433 965

Totals 1,636 1,600 1,867 5,103

CA 317 433 434 1,184

Off icers CS 130 146 174 450

CSS 80 96 149 325

Totals 527 675 757 1,959

Total 5,844 6,182 6,875 18,901

ICA = Combat Arms

CS = Combat Support

CSS = Combat Service Support

___jt

5

*ft** . -. .
P5.

responding was one of selecting the same response alternative over a long series of

items. Data from subjects who selected the same response alternative for 25 of more

successive items were removed fr(m further analyses. This quality control procedure

resulted in the elimination of approximately three percent of the data.

In order to determine if satisfaction represents a member's affective orientation

toward the organization, an index of affect was constructed from the climate items to

compare with the scc.-es on the satisfaction items. All the climate items were

independently judged by two judges as being affectively positive, negative, or neutral.

Items were included in the neutral category if they were assessed as such by both judges

or if there was disagreement as to their categorization. There were two items placed

in this category. Of the remaining 67 items, the judges reached agreement on 50 items

in the positive category and 17 in the negative category.

The item responses were converted to standard scores to insure comparability.

The z- scores for all positively and all negatively rated items were then averaged

separately, while the neutral items were eliminated from further analysis. The two

resulting statistics were labeled z+ and z-, with the first of these being an indicant of a

subject's tendency to agree to affectively positive items and the second reflecting

agreement to affectively negative items.

To test for the possibility that these measures were indicants of an acquiescent

response set rather than a true measure of degree of affect, a Pearson product moment

correlation coefficient was calculated between z+ and z-. If a positive correlation were

found, this would indicate an acquiescent response set that was independent of the

content of the items. A significant negative correlation, on the other hand, would

suggest that subjects were selectively attending to the affective content of the items

and were responding in a manner consistent with their generalized affect towards their

situations. Significant (p < .00 1) negative correlations were observed between z+ and zof -. 50, -.49, and -. 47, for waves 1, 2, and 3 respectively, suggesting that the indices

were, in fact, measuring affective orientation. The z+ and z- statistics were then .J,

combined into single affective orientation index (Al) using the equation:

Al (z+) - (z-) /2

6

- .~%%*~ ~ ~ .. ,.1
Despite the unequal number of items underlying z+ and z-, these two indices were

weighted equally in this computation so that the Al index equally represented

affectively-consistent agreement aid disagreement across the entire range of items. A

positive score on this index, therefore, indicates the degree to which a subject displays

a tendency to agree with affective positive items and disagree with affectively

negative items. Conversely, a negative score reflects a subject's tendency to disagree

with affectively positive items and- agree with affectively negative items across

content areas in the questionnaire.

K

RESULTS C.

The validity of satisfaction items as indicators of affective orientation (Hypothesis 1) was determined by their relationship with the derived measure of affect, Al.

Table 2 shows the correlations between Al and the satisfaction items for each of three

waves of data collection. It is clear that there is substantial correlation between the

satisfaction measures and the independent measure of affective orientation, thus

supporting the hypothesis that satisfaction represents a member's affective orientation

toward the organization.

TABLE 2

ZERO ORDER AND MULTIPLE CORRELATION BETWEEN AFFECTIVE

INDEX (AI) AND SATISFACTION MEASURES

Wave I Wave 2 Wave 3

r r r

Satisfaction with Unit .63 .63 .63

Satisfaction with Supervisor .65 .63 .65

Satisfaction with Coworkers .44 .46 .44

Satisfaction with Job .61 .62 .60 C.

C..

Multiple R .81 .79 .80

7

' % *~., .. " . "."-€ "..-. . . . ** €. . . "."*.* , . , € " %, " '.*,-. " -%"-., ; -* ". " "-. .- '
The intercorrelations among the four satisfaction items were all significant

beyond the .0001 level. Given this intercorrelation, responses to these four items were

averaged to produce a single "General Satisfaction" score for each individual. This

single measure of General Satisfaction was employed to test hypotheses 2 and 3

regarding the validity of affective orientation as an organizational attribute. The

internal consistency of this measure was assessed through the computation of Cronbach

alpha coefficients, which were .74, .72, and .72 for waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Two different approaches were employed to assess the use of affective orientation as an organizational attribute. The first approach examined the discrimiqant

validity of the General Satisfaction measure at the battalion level (Hypothesis 2). If

General Satisfaction varied only at the individual level; it would be randomly distributed across battalions, and there would be no differences between battalions on this

variable. However, if affective orientation was a true organizational attribute, then

different battalion settings would produce different General Satisfaction levels. Accordingly, the 55 battalions were compared on General Satisfaction using the one-way

analysis of variance technique. As shown in Table 3, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Battalions differed significantly on this measure, and this finding was consistent across

the three waves. This suggests that affective orientation is a true organizational

attribute and can thus be analyzed at this level. -

TABLE 3

RESULTS OF ONE-WAY ANOVAS TESTING DISCRIMINABILITY

OF GENERAL SATISFACTION MEASURE BY WAVE

Wave

1 2 3

F 4.14 5.62 4.14 '%

df 48,5643 52,6294 48,5643

p .001 .001 .001

NOTE: p< .001 for all coefficients

S%

. .% ". , + = 's-- ;.X'.; ' . , ,., ... , .+ ,. ,..'.',-,, +., ,. ,-" .*" v , ",.'. . .... i i i i i i l-il l~li l l~ii' i . .. .. .. .* . ' I' . .
The second approach was to determine the stability of aggregated satisfaction

(i.e., morale) at the organizational level (Hypothesis 3). To perform this analysis, the

General Satisfaction score for each individual was aggregated to the battalion level

producing a mean satisfaction score for each battalion. (See Appendix B for this

measure's mean and standard deviation). Inasmuch as this aggregated measure

characterizes the affective state of the unit as a whole, it reflects the concept of unit

morale. If morale is, in fact, a meaningful organizational construct, then the battalion

morale measure should be positively correlated across the six months separating

adjacent data collection waves. The observed correlation coefficients across the

adjacent waves were positive and significant for both the Wave 1/Wave 2 comparison

(r : .28, p<.02) and that for Wave 2/Wave 3 (r = .39, p<.01). Thus, the result supports

Hypothesis 3 and suggests that morale, as measured by aggregated unit members

satisfaction, is a relatively stable organizational construct.

DISCUSSION

The significant correlations found at the individual level of analysis between the

satisfaction items and our derived measure of affect support the commonly held, but

largely untested, assumption that job satisfaction directly reflects an individual's

affective orientation toward his/her work environment. More importantly, however,

the findings derived through the analyses of the morale measure take affect out of the

realm of individual psychology and suggest that an affective variable such as morale

can be legitimately operationalized at the organizational level. This not only clarifies

the nature and function of this variable, but has important implications for the

understanding of related variables as well.

One such variable is organizational climate. While a very extensive literature has

developed around organization climate and its contribution to the understanding of

organizational dynamics, this concept has suffered from several basic definitional

problems. The two most central problems have concerned the appropriate level of

analysis for this variable (i.e., what is the relationship between organizational climate

and psychological climate?) and the degree of redundancy between either organizational

or psychological climate on the one hand with affect on the other. Positions on this

latter issue have ranged from those who have held that climate and satisfaction are

9
theoretically and empirically distinct (Schneider & Reichers, 1983) to Guion's (1974)

contention that climate is only a "rediscovery of the job satisfaction wheel." While

research results have been advanced in support of both positions, the resolution of this

important issue has been impeded by level-of-analysis problems. That is, while

organizational climate has been held by most to be an organizational-level variable, an

assumption has been made by most researchers that affect is strictly an individual-level

variable. Thus, much of the research examining climate-affect redundancy has utilized

individual-level analysis, never truly assessing either organizational climate or organizational affect or determining the degree of redundancy between these variables.

By indicating that affect can be legitimately conceptualized and measured at the

organizational level, the present results clear the way for the resolution of this and

related issues. These results indicate that systematic affective variance can be found

at both the individual and organizational levels and aligns with climate measures in the

manner depicted in Figure 1. A measure of organizational level affect (i.e., morale)

such as that developed in the present research can be used in conjunction with measures

of organizational climate to directly assess climate/affect redundancy at the organizational level. Through such further research a greater definition and delineation can be

achieved between these two classes of variables and their role in furthering our

understanding of organizational dynamics.

Level of Analysis Measurement Domain

Perceptual Affective

Organizational Organizational Climate Morale

Individual Psychological Climate Job Satisfaction

i.

FIGURE 1

CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF CLIMATE MEASURES

TO AFFECTIVE MEASURES

10
A separate question concerning the present results relates to the adequacy of a

morale measure that is based solely on satisfaction. Although most writers agree that

satisfaction is an important component of morale, some (e.g., Blum & Naylor, 1963;

Motowidlo & Borman, 1977, 1978) argue that other dimensions should also be included to

capture the concept's full meaning. We suggest that while morale may, in fact, be a

multidimensional variable, this does not necessarily imply that a unidimensional

measure, such as the one described in the present paper, is inappropriate. Operational

definitions of psychological constructs rarely (if ever) tap all relevant dimensions. The

field of psychology has usually progressed by beginning with limited measures of a

particular concept and subsequently building upon these first approximations (Elms,

1975). The same procedure is suggested in the case of organizational morale. Other

hypothesized dimensions can be incorporated into future measurement instruments and

their discriminant and concurrent validity tested. This systematic approach should lead

to the development of a truly reliable and valid instrument that does justice to the

potentially multidimensional nature of the concept.

The development of such an instrument is only the beginning, of course. However,

it is a necessary first step, for without well-constructed morale measures, it becomes

impossible to assess the true impact of morale on organizational functioning. A very

basic question involves the relationship between morale and unit effectiveness. As

Motowidlo et al. (1976) note, the military has devoted a great deal of effort to unit

morale building based on the largely untested assumption that high morale leads to

effective units. Motowidlo and Borman (1978) report moderate correlations between

their morale measure and some administrative indices of unit effectiveness (e.g.,

reenlistment, congressional inquiries). Yet there is a substantial body of literature

suggesting that affective states do not necessarily correlate with productivity, but

rather that this relationship is contingent on other personal and situational factors

within the organization (Smith, 1976). A related issue concerns the direction of

casuality. It has long been assumed that morale drives productivity. However, there is

recent evidence to suggest that the oposite may be true (O'Mara, Note 1). Without a -*

reliable and valid organizational morale measure, the exact nature of this relationship

cannot be determined.

I=,
*j77 *. .. .. -771,7 7v T- V.# -v W..-

An equally important question that cannot be answered without adequate

measurement instruments involves the determinants of morale. What must be done to

develop high morale in a unit? To date, the morale building process is based largely on

conventional wisdom and conjecture rather than on systematic experimentation. A

well-constructed morale measure would greatly facilitate research efforts in this area

and lead to the identification of factors that could be translated into training programs

to teach leaders how to effect high morale in their units.

1'

o.

%.

5..
II

REFERENCES

Applewhite, P. B. (1965). Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

Baynes, 3. (1967). Morale, London: Cassel & Co.

Blum, M. L. and Naylor, J. C. (969). Industrial psychology: Its theoretical and social

foundations. New York: Harper & Row.

Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American

Psychologist, 30, 967-76.

Guion, R. M. (1958). Industrial morale (a symposium) 1: The problem of terminology.

Personnel Psychology, 11, 59-64.

Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 9, 120-123.

James, L. R. and Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and

research. Psychological Bulletin, 81. 1096-1112.

LaFollette, W. R. and Sims, H. P. (1975). Is satisfaction redundant with organizational

climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13_, 257-278.

Lincoln, 3. R. and Zeitz, G. (1980). Organizational properties from aggregate data:

Separating individual and structural effects. American Sociological Review, 45, 391-

408. C-.

Martin, A. R. (1965). Morale and productivity: A review of the literature. Public

Personnel Review 30(1), 42-45.

Motowidlo, S. 3. and Borman, W. C. (1977). Behaviorally anchored scales for measuring

morale in military units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 177-183. i1

Motowidlo, S. 3. and Borman, W. C. (1978). Relationships between military morale,

motivation, satisfaction and unit effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(0),

47-52.

Motowidlo, S. 3., Dowell, B. E., Hopp, M. A., Borman, W. C., Johnson, P. D., and

Dunnette, M. D. (1976). Motivation, satisfaction, and morale in army careers: A

review of theory and measurement, Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions, Inc.

Munson, E. L. (1921). The management of men. New York: Holt.

Schneider, B. and Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel

Psychology, 16, 19-39.

Smith, P. C. (1976). Behaviors, results and organizational effectiveness. In M. D.

Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Chicago: Rand

McNally, pp. 245-775.

Stagner, R. (1958). Industrial morale (a symposium) 1l: Motivational aspects of

industrial morale, Personnel Psychology, 11, 64-70.

13
Taylor, J. C. and Bowers, D. G. (1922). Survey of organizations, Ann Arbor: Institute

for Social Research.

Tamapol, L. (1963). Motivation in human relations: Focus for training directors

management. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

REFERENCE NOTES

O'Mara, F. E. (1981, 17 June). "Command climate and battalion effectiveness."

Briefing presented to the ARI Quarterly Review Committee.

14

'S.

4s

*-1

iI

,A
APPENDIX A

SATISFACTION AND CLIMATE SURVEY ITEMS

Satisfaction Items

All in all, I ari satisfied with the unit that I am in.

All in all, I am satisfied with my supervisor.

All in all, I am satisfiea with the persons in my work group.

All in all, I am satisfied with my job.

Climate Items

Unit Domain

In my unit it is hard to get the equipment and tools I need to do my job.

My unit gets told about important events later than other units.

Scheduled events like training and inspections are'cancelled at the last minute.

The officers in my unit care about what happens to the indiviaual soldier in my

unit.

Excessive drinking is not a prbb-lem in my unit.

My unit does not have a drug problem.

Decisions are made in this unit after getting information from those who

actually do the job.

My unit is respected on this post.

Meetings in this unit generally accomplish meaningful objectives.

Decisions are made in this unit at those levels where the most adequate

information is available. a

fly unit is willing to try new or improved methods of doing work.

There is discrimination against minorities in this unit.

Rules in this unit are enforced.

There is discrimination against whites in this unit.

This unit places a high emphasis on accomplishing the mission.

A-i

i....... .. ... .. ........ ....... .. .
iThe information I receive down through the chaiin-of-coumnand is generally

accurate.

I feel safe in my unit area.

What is your evaluation of the overail work effectiveness of your

company/troop/battery? ("Not effective" to "Extremely effective')

Compared to all other units that you have ever served in how effective is your

company/troop/battery? ("Least effective" to "lost effective")

How many improvements would it take to make this unit the most effective

company/troop/battery that you have ever served in? ("lMany improvements" to "No

improvements" )

Supervisor Domain

My supervisor is willing to listen to my problem.

My supervisor encourages people to give their best efforts.

My supervisor gives me instructions that conflict with other information I get.

My supervisor makes us work a lot of unnecessary overtime.

When I'm talking to my supervisor, he doesn't pay attention to what I'm saying.

ily supervisor lets other supervisors interfere with my work group.

My supervisor puts suggestions by the members of the unit into operation.

My supervisor decides what shall be done and how it shall be done.

My supervisor makes sure his role in the company is understood by the men.

My supervisor gives us big jobs late in the day and wants them done before we

leave work.

hy supervisor insists that individuals follow standard operating procedures.

My supervisor lets individuals know what is expected of them.

Ify supervisor acts without consulting the men in the unit.

My supervisor refuses to explain his actions.

ly supervisor treats the people who work for him fairly.

kly supervisor tries to do his best.

A-2

L % ' % % " '' , - % . . . • ' ' . . . . * . , , . . . . . . . . . .A- 
Coworker Louaiu

The soldiers in my unit let you know when they think you've done a good job.

'The soldiers in my unit try to think of better ways of getting the job done.

The soldiers in my unit criticize guys who are goofing off.

The soldiers in my unit get along with each other.

The senior NCOs in my unit look out for the welfare of the individual soldier in

my uni t.

The zembers of my work group try to do their best.

Job Dowain

fly job gives me the chance to learn skills that are useful outside the Army.

In my job, I can tell how well I am doing-without other people telling me.

I know what I will be doing from day to day.

fly job requires high-level technical skills.

I.

In my job, I have more work to do than one person can handle.

fly job lets me use my skills and training.

In my job, I nave to work extra hours:

My job lets me do the tnings I am good at.

:ly job keeps me too busy to take extra training programs.

]iy job gives me the feeling that I have done something important.

The pressures of my job spill over into my off-duty life.

I can see what my job has to do with others in my unit.

I have full responsibility for doing certain parts of my job.

fly job leaves me feeling tired at the end of the day.

Army rules and regulations make it hard for me to do my job.

I
I get a sense of accomplishment from the work I do.

Workload and time factors are taken into consideration in planning our work

group assignments.

I look forward to coming to work every day.

My job helps me to achieve my personal goals.

';I want to contribute my best efforts to the unit's mission and my asstgned

,. tasks.

I have a good opportunity for advancement in this unit if I do a good job.

.* The job I have is a respected one.

I enjoy doing the type of work that my job requires.

I try to do my best.

How well do you know how to do your job?

It

Miscellaneous

In general, I feel that I have gotten a fair deal from the Army.

My possessions are safe where I live.

Jh

16,

A

A

A-4
APPENDIX B

SUMM1ARY STATISTICS OF A BATTALION LEVEL MORALE MEASURE

AS A FUNCTION OF WAVE AND GRADE LEVEL

Summary Statistics

Standard Number

Ilean deviation of cases

Grade Level

Service Members 2.45 .97 3795

Wave NCOs 3.10 .97 1673

1 Officers 3.82 .94 542

Service flembers 3.03 .83 3971 t

Wave NCOs 3.27 .85 1624

2 fies3.53 .74 683

Service ?Nembers 3.15 .86 4737

Wave NCOS 3.42 .86 1848

3 Officers 3.46 .75 184

052786